Emphasizing on the absence of premeditation and the short duration of the incident, the Supreme Court find that the appellant had confronted the deceased in a fit of rage but had no intention to kill her, and therefore altered the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, resulting in appellant's release based on sentence served.

Referring to the judgment in case of Deepak v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2018) 8 SCC 228] and recent judgement in the case of Anbazhagan vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, the Two Judge Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat observed that “it is discernible that there was no premeditation to cause death or the genesis of occurrence and the single assault by the accused and duration of entire episode, were factors to adjudge the intention. The offence can be brought clearly within the ambit of Section 304 Part-II IPC”.

The Bench clarified that a single assault by the appellant coupled with the duration of the entire period having occurred for about 2-3 minutes would not be sufficient to infer that he had the intention to kill the deceased.

Had there been any intention to do away with the life of the deceased, obviously the appellant would have come prepared and would have assaulted the deceased with pre-meditation, added the Bench.

Advocate M.A Chinnasamy appeared for the Appellant, whereas Advocate Joseph Aristotle appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case were that a criminal case involving the appellant, a convict-accused, challenged the judgment passed by the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court, whereby the appellant's conviction and sentence was upheld. The prosecution's case revolved around the unfortunate events leading to the demise of deceased (Sangeetha), who had been in a relationship with the appellant. However, the deceased’s decision to end the relationship and interact with a neighbor incited the appellant's anger, resulting in confronting her about her interactions with that person and in a fit of rage, caused her serious harm. Although the deceased was admitted to the hospital, later she tragically passed away.

The appellant was initially charged with several offenses including murder. After trial, he was found guilty of the offenses with sentences to be served concurrently. The High Court affirmed said sentence and concluded that the appellant's actions were premeditated and amounted to murder under Section 300 of IPC. Hence, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

After considering the submission, Bench pointed that the legislature has used two different terminologies, ‘intent’ and ‘knowledge’ and separate punishments are provided for an act committed with an intent to cause bodily injury which is likely to cause death and for an act committed with a knowledge that his act is likely to cause death without intent to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

Observing that it would be unsafe to treat ‘intent’ and ‘knowledge’ in equal terms, the Bench explained that ‘Knowledge’ would be one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration while determining or inferring the requisite intent.

Thus, the Bench observed that where the evidence would not disclose that there was any intention to cause death of the deceased but it was clear that the accused had knowledge that his acts were likely to cause death, the accused can be held guilty under second part of Section 304 IPC.

“The expression used in Indian Penal Code namely “intention” and “knowledge” has to be seen as there being a thin line of distinction between these two expressions. The act to constitute murder, if in given facts and circumstances, would disclose that the ingredients of Section 300 are not satisfied and such act is one of extreme recklessness, it would not attract the said Section”, added the Bench.

Accordingly, the Bench explained that in order to bring a case within Part 3 of Section 300 IPC, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury which in the ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death.

Accordingly, the Bench concluded that there was no premeditation to cause death, and the single assault by the appellant and the duration of the entire incident did not indicate any intention to kill.

Finding that the appellant had approached the deceased to confront her about their relationship and became enraged when he received an unsatisfactory response, the Apex Court decided to alter the appellant's conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

Cause Title: N. Ramkumar v. State [Neutral Citation: 2023: INSC: 812]

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice S Ravindra BhatJustice Aravind Kumar

Pankaj Bajpai